From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 13 05:57:50 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C16B3B; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:57:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBCEC2; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (Scott4long@pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3D5V9B7089041; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:31:09 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: ipfilter(4) needs maintainer From: Scott Long In-Reply-To: <7D8ACD5C-821D-4505-82E4-02267A7BA4F8@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:31:09 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20130411201805.GD76816@FreeBSD.org> <7D8ACD5C-821D-4505-82E4-02267A7BA4F8@FreeBSD.org> To: Rui Paulo , Gleb Smirnoff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, net@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 05:57:50 -0000 On Apr 12, 2013, at 7:43 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 2013/04/11, at 13:18, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >=20 >> Lack of maintainer in a near future would lead to bitrot due to = changes >> in other areas of network stack, kernel APIs, etc. This already = happens, >> many changes during 10.0-CURRENT cycle were only compile tested wrt >> ipfilter. If we fail to find maintainer, then a correct decision = would be >> to remove ipfilter(4) from the base system before 10.0-RELEASE. >=20 > This has been discussed in the past. Every time someone came up and = said "I'm still using ipfilter!" and the idea to remove it dies with it.=20= > I've been saying we should remove it for 4 years now. Not only it's = outdated but it also doesn't not fit well in the FreeBSD roadmap. Then = there's the question of maintainability. We gave the author a commit bit = so that he could maintain it. That doesn't happen anymore and it sounds = like he has since moved away from FreeBSD. I cannot find any reason to = burden another FreeBSD developer with maintaining ipfilter. >=20 One thing that FreeBSD is bad about (and this really applies to many = open source projects) when deprecating something is that the developer = and release engineering groups rarely provide adequate, if any, tools to = help users transition and cope with the deprecation. The fear of = deprecation can be largely overcome by giving these users a clear and = comprehensive path forward. Just announcing "ipfilter is going away. = EOM" is inadequate and leads to completely justified complaints from = users. So with that said, would it be possible to write some tutorials on how = to migrate an ipfilter installation to pf? Maybe some mechanical syntax = docs accompanied by a few case studies? Is it possible for a script to = automate some of the common mechanical changes? Also essential is a = clear document on what goes away with ipfilter and what is gained with = pf. Once those tools are written, I suggest announcing that ipfilter is = available but deprecated/unsupported in FreeBSD 10, and will be removed = from FreeBSD 11. Certain people will still pitch a fit about it = departing, but if the tools are there to help the common users, you'll = be successful in winning mindshare and general support. Scott